Once all the data are gathered, they can be aggregated and analysed. The analysis requires basic statistical skills, knowledge on how to manage large data sets and familiarity with Excel and/or other data analysis software such as R.
After completing the first 33 modules of the SHARP+ tool, the application automatically calculates the compound resilience scores per module, presented in module 34. The compound score ranges from 0 to 20 as it is the sum of the technical score (maximum 10 points) and the self- assessed adequacy score (maximum 10 points). Farms with lower resilience levels will obtain scores closer to 0.
Generally speaking, low scores can be caused by either the absence or the low performance of the resource/status in question (i.e. technical resilience score), and/or because people consider the aspect in question to be insufficient for the good functioning of their farm systems and households (self-assessed adequacy score).
More detailed analyses can be carried out to :
- Describe the information coming from the different question modules covered in order to understand the context of the study and establish a baseline in case of M&E;
- Identify vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the farming system for potential intervention;
- Identify the farmers' perceived priorities;
- Disaggregate results by gender of the household head and respondent, and by geographical area to compare results.
The SHARP team can provide support for data analysis if desired and needed.
How is resilience calculated?
Within each module, the responses (technical and adequacy component) are scored from 0 to 10. The scores were initially determined based on e-discussions with over 150 academics and experts taking place in 2014 and then refined during the several technical reviews. Please refer to Annex C of SHARP's new guidance document for practitioners for the detailed scoring system.
All modules usually include several questions referring to the technical component and one question referring to the adequacy component. To calculate the compound resilience score, the average of the multiple technical resilience scores is added to the adequacy score.
Example of Scoring system for module 6: Weed Species and management
In the table below, each row represents a question and the score associated with the different answer options. In this example, the respondent is asked to state whether he/she has seen any weeds on the cultivated land and to list the different practices used to manage weed. If the farmer answers that he/she has noticed weeds and practices hand and hoe weeding to manage them, he/she will get a score of 10 and 7 respectively. Averaging these two technical scores, the respondent has a technical resilience score of 8.5. If he/she then states that he/she is not very satisfied (a little) with the effectiveness of these management methods, the adequacy score will be of 2.5. As a result, the compound resilience score for this module is 11 (8.5+2.5), qualifying it as medium resilient.
QUESTION | ASPECT MESURED | SCORE |
In the last 12 months, have you seen any weeds on your fields? (technical) | Yes/No | Yes= 10 No = 0 |
What practices have you used to manage them? (technical) | Number of practices used among the following: Cover crops; Hand weeding; Hoe weeding; Associating my main crop with other crops; Livestock grazing | I did not take any action=0 1=5 2=7 3+=10
|
To what extent were the management methods you used effective in limiting the negative impact of weeds on your farmland? (adequacy) | Perceived satisfaction of the effectiveness of the practices put in place | Not at all = 0 A little = 2.5 Average = 5 A lot = 7.5 Completely = 10 |